37
   

Why 7 days for Creation?

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 07:34 am
@contrex,
Quote:
E=mc squared works out exactly
Well Con I had the same reaction to Spendius'. At first I was baffled
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 08:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Okay, provide proof that the theories of evolution is fake.


The theories of evolution ARE fake.

The first one was found fake when the main conclusion of Darwin, saying that natural selection acts "solely" by favorable and slow steps was a conclusion that doesn't agree with observation.

When this huge mistake was found, evolutionists invented the idea that failed theories can be "updated".

And such is fraud.

When a theory is found false, it can't be updated but discarded.

Evolutionists came with the Neo-Darwinian theory (1970s) where they changed the whole theory but kept the name title and the name of the doctrines.

The new "natural selection" definition was changed by several opinions, and the new definitions differed completely from the original one given by Darwin.

This is an era where evolutionists tried to impose the idea that "evolution simply means change" in every aspect beyond the theory itself.

Nobody bought the idea. For example, you can't call evolution to a world where people return back and change the cell phones to line phones. Such is not evolution at all, and that change is a retrograde movement in technology , convenience, comfort, etc. (Unless the US keep provoking North Korea, and the Korean dude decided to send a missile to the top atmosphere with an atomic bomb, make it to explode and disable the whole satellites in space. After that, the whole instruments of the entire world which lean on GPS, satellite transmission will be unusable, and the world must return back to line phone use.... still, return back to that stage is not evolution but involution, devolution, etc.)

The Neo Darwinian theory of evolution never fixed the gap problem, never presented the mechanism acting in the changes generation to generation.

And this is also the main fault of relativity, big bang, evolution, etc.

Non one of those theories EXPLAIN the mechanism.

For example, what is the mechanism acting to dilate time? How it works?

See?

You believe in theories which are not theories.

Remember, a theory of science is an attempt TO EXPLAIN a certain phenomena of a certain class as a consequence of a former phenomena of the same class.

Explain the mechanism of a microscopic particle forming galaxies.

See?

When you defend those good for nothing theories of science means that your mind is full of sh*t.

I can't do anything to help you... just to provide you toilet paper...





cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 08:45 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
I'd say he sounds more like the unlamented Quahog than the SnaKKKe. If he starts talking about the British Royal Family hunting naked teenagers through the Royal Woods to their death, we'll know for sure.


You sound like an idiot.

Period.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 09:29 am
@cameronleon,
Quahog WAS an idiot, beyond question. And you sound just like him.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 09:42 am
@roger,
No, that was one of Quahog's hobbyhorses, of which there were many, along with calling anyone who accepted the multiple evidences for what science says deluded. He got it from the English crackpot David Ickes. And cameronetceterA has his spiel down perfectly.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 10:47 am
@cameronleon,
Quote:

The theories of evolution ARE fake.


there ya go. Proof that sticks to the ribs.



And your sense of the history of science is all et also.
"neo Darwinin" thought i nothing more than the integration of a number of disciplines > AND it was first proposed by J G Romane in the late 1800's. It was developed as the "modern synthesis" in the middle 1930's




Quote:
Evolutionists came with the Neo-Darwinian theory (1970s) where they changed the whole theory but kept the name title and the name of the doctrines.

It isnt most of the other people on the board who are being obtuse, its you. (Perhaps you should , at least try to get SOME facts right before you take off an spiel crap like you know of what you speak. You are really embarrassing yourself.

I understand that Creationists and IDers haave tried to pick apart terminology to try to cast doubt on Darwin
Words like
"polystrate"
"neo Darwin(ISM)"{as a refuttion of Darwin}
"Irreducible complexity"are all pretty much debunked as total Bullhit
"Universal Intelligence"
"neutral Theory" As a refutation of evolution itself

Im not certain where you will be heading next but Im sure its going to be dead wrong.

"





dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:17 am
@cameronleon,
https://able2know.org/topic/409113-1
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:30 am
@rosborne979,
Regarding to that excellent # 14

https://able2know.org/topic/409117-1#post-6491893
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 12:30 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman, You're wasting your time. People of religion can't accept evolution, because it destroys their life-long belief in the super natural god. There is evidence that people of religion believe in science, but they're being contradictory. You can't believe in creation and evolution as being equal. According to science, humans have existed for 200,000 years. The bible claims 7,000 years. I trust science over a 2000 year old book written by many people, and which has too many errors, omissions and contradictions.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 02:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Oh I know that. I just like to mess with their heads and let em know that, no matter how they whine. Their way will NOT be pursued by reasonable an real science
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 06:44 pm
@farmerman,
The more I red this Camleon guy, the more I see what Monterey's been aying. Quahog never engaged in any kind of intelligent reasoning, just mindless gainsay. This guys the very same. (I went back to find a Quahog piece and its amazing the similarities).
I guess these cowards are only good for one song and when they get found out by a number of people, they head for the cover of anonymity, (t least till they come up with a new member name.

I guess Ill get no sense from Cameron. He will just keep screaming his religiou beliefs.

No biggy.
cameronleon
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 07:57 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:

https://able2know.org/topic/110967-14#post-6491841

I do have an idea, I call Relative Relativity. It's difficult to explain the apparent changes in a moving object, such as its evident change in mass or length, slowing of its clock, etc; explained by complex math but very unsatisfying to the intuition


OK, no explanation here but the difficulty to explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation.

Quote:
Now, what follows is a gross oversimplification of my proposal, but suppose we're underestimating its velocity. For instance when it's appears to have neared c, its mass seems to have become enormous, its length looks as if shrunk to near zero, and its clock appears to have stopped. So suppose its velocity [and that of light] is actually much greater but, owing to our present inability to resolve certain paradoxes and contradictions involving time-at-a-distance we underestimate; actually the object is goin' many, many times v


Seriously, do you really understand what this dude said? He started saying "suppose we underestimate the velocity of the body in question.

If you really pay attention to that beginning, he is assuming, not so explaining.

As far as we know, the increasing of mass due to velocity was observed long before the idiot of Einstein claimed it was his idea. in 1980 J.J. Thomson and W. Kauffmann observed the mass in cathode rays to change depending on speed.

So far, no observation at all suggest that such increasing of mass can happen with a macroscopic body. So, those ideas that it will also happen with a spaceship or a planet, star or a galaxy, such is lunacies, ideas invented by idiots.

Even more, without considering the fraud of space expansion -proved false by many scientists- it has been observed galaxies traveling reaching almost the speed of light and others traveling faster than the speed of light, and their sizes don't show any increase in their mass.

The retarded who is trying to explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation still babbling sh*t and no explanation is given.

Quote:
Thus the observation, when we place a bigger object in its path, that it has 'way more destructive power than we'd otherwise expect. The reason it seems shorter, is that the light from the front and back of the speeding chunk is reaching us at the same instant; and we see its clock as stopped 'cause it's reaching its destination much quicker than we realize


Why this idiot has to place a bigger object in the path of the moving body traveling at an almost speed of light?

This is an unnecessary step and a manipulation in his mental experiment.

Now well, he says that we "see its clock"

What the hell is he talking about?

What clock?

Excuse me dalehileman, but the reference you have posted belongs to a complete idiot.

What clock is he talking about?

To what distance is the body traveling from us at almost the speed of light?

How the hell he can see "its clock"?

Lol

The only sure thing is that velocity and distance create illusions, and to us, the fast object at long distance looking from a certain angle can make us think that is going to a different speed than its real one, but this is a rare case, the angle of observation might impede a good comparison with other objects around, but this is a weird case.

Quote:
Thus the observation, when we place a bigger object in its path, that it has 'way more destructive power than we'd otherwise expect. The reason it seems shorter, is that the light from the front and back of the speeding chunk is reaching us at the same instant; and we see its clock as stopped 'cause it's reaching its destination much quicker than we realize


He can't explain how the hell he is going to put another "bigger object" in the path of a body moving at almost the speed of light. In order to do so, the body used for obstruction must reach the same speed or faster speed than light in order to be in front of the other moving body.

This is to say, this dude with his bubbling is talking sh*t and more sh*t and you call "science" to all that amount of sh*t.

And now he also claims that he will be able to see the clock of the moving object to stop, no more "appearing to stop" but now it will stop.

After reading such a crap, I'm very glad to believe in God, because regardless of how much you criticize the bible, the ideas of Einstein and the assumed explanation of that dude of the message are complete sh*t to the square. ha ha ha ha.

Quote:

I've proposed this at web sites more in the scientific realm, and though disagreeing, they understand what I'm sayin'. Still, I haven't been controverted. I think the main reason my theory seems overly convoluted and unlikely, is that it's rejected by 'common sense,' but then so is Al's


And funny, he claims that his "explanation" can be understood by others.

Everything he said has not even common sense. What an idiot!

Quote:
Actually when you consider it carefully you might find it very simple, in agreement with intuition, and neatly resolving, eg, the Twin Paradox as well as other still controversial aspects of present theory


A simple review of the explanation of the mechanism involved in time dilatation given by this stupid poster of the message given in the link, reveals that relativists are poor idiots who don't know anything about science.

How the hell they pretend to criticize the bible with their lunacies?

Come on dudes, wake up to reality, You have been deceived and evolution, relativity and big bang are not science but stupidities.

You can't explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation, then whatever you think you know is pure crap.

You better buy a bible and learn what God has for you, and become a wise person, not so an idiotic relativist.








cameronleon
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 07:58 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
The more I red this Camleon guy, the more I see what Monterey's been aying. Quahog never engaged in any kind of intelligent reasoning, just mindless gainsay. This guys the very same. (I went back to find a Quahog piece and its amazing the similarities).
I guess these cowards are only good for one song and when they get found out by a number of people, they head for the cover of anonymity, (t least till they come up with a new member name.

I guess Ill get no sense from Cameron. He will just keep screaming his religiou beliefs.

No biggy.


Just explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation.

If you don't, then your words are sh*t to the square.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 09:06 pm
@cameronleon,
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.WaI1TCiGPx4
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 09:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Just dont mention Niagara Falls.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 10:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From your reference link

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.WaI1TCiGPx4

Quote:
That the flow of time is constant is seemingly obvious and this has been the prevailing view for almost all of human history.


First of all:

Flow of time.

Such has always been a conventional idea.

You must prove that time does flow.

You must bring the evidence that time flows.

The evidence includes the persons who detected the flowing time before the phenomenon of dilatation.

The date of such observation of the detection of flowing time.

The instrument used to detect such flowing of time.


As you can see, the reference link you have provided is also pure sh*t to the square.

How long for to to recognize that those dudes made you an idiot?

I can tell you with complete assurance, that dude Einstein was a brute, a retarded, an idiot, a stupid guy, a fraudulent person, never a genius, because time can't dilate due to time is just a measure, a concept, never a physical mean that flows.



cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 10:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From your reference link

Quote:
We can see from the graph that at “low” speeds there is only a small change in time dilation (i.e. the flow of time doesn't change very much), but at speeds over about 75% of the speed of light the effect of time dilation is quite dramatic. Even at the "low speed" of 10% of the speed of light (300,000 km per second, or 186,300 miles per second) our clocks would slow down by only around 1%, but if we travel at 95% of the speed of light time will slow down to about one-third of that measured by a stationary observer. Note that at zero percent of the speed of light there is no time dilation at all. Also, while we can get as close to the speed of light as our technology allows, it's impossible to actually reach a speed of 100% of the speed of light. So, when we move, at whatever speed, time slows down relative to a stationary observer. But note that, for example, the occupants of a rocket travelling at very high speeds would still experience time passing normally. However, if they could see out to an Earth-bound clock it would appear, to them, to be running too quickly. If an Earth-bound observer could see a clock inside the rocket it would appear to be running too slowly. This is why the theory is called "relativity", it is because time is relative to whoever is observing it at a particular speed.


What a bunch of lunatics and ignorant.

Look.

In the universe nothing is "stationary"

Everything moves in the universe, and everything moves at fast speeds.

If you think you are in a stationary status when you rest in your bed at nights, sorry but you are traveling at 19 miles per second which is the speed of earth around the Sun.

But, you are traveling even faster in reality. The Sun moves at 136 miles per second around the Milky Way.

But you are traveling even faster. The Milky Way travels at the speed of 372 miles per second.

With this fact that bodies inside our galaxy are the whole moving at 372 miles per second, there is no room for stationary status.

For example.

You are resting at the beach while a satellite is orbiting around the earth at 5 miles per second. Relativists say that time dilates around the satellite because its speed in reference to your speed. (the infamous frames of reference)

But, a satellite located near Jupiter can see that the satellite and planet earth are BOTH moving at the same speed of 19 miles per second around the Sun.

With this fact, this third "frame of reference" disqualifies the doctrine of relativity of dilatation of time because you resting at the beach and the satellite are both of you traveling at the same speed.

As you can see, the reference given by you is a complete fraud.

And the funniest thing is that your reference links never respond the question about the mechanism involved in such time dilatation.

And the reason is because relativist can't detect any flowing of time in order to understand a mechanism involved in a change of such a flowing.

And time can't be detected simply because time doesn't exist physically.

You have been deceived, those relativists made you an idiot. Lol.



MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:20 pm
@cameronleon,
Turns out that GPS satellites moving around the earth depend on very very very accurate cesium clocks. For thirty years they have known that those clocks, with respect ot earthbound clocks with which they are calibrated, show relativistic effects, which have to be factored in to get accurate results. It's not even controversial anymore, ecept with relativity deniers like cameronloon. It's simply hard-headed engineering based on repeated observation. They've had to do it to make sure you don't end up in Alaska rather than Florida when you're going on vacation with your GPS. They have been doing it for decades. It works.
https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-112516142975720/unrestricted/ch7.pdf
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
There's also the atomic clock for accuracy.
atomic clock accuracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2017 11:43 pm
@cameronleon,
but very unsatisfying to the intuition

Quote:
OK, no explanation here but the difficulty to explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation.
Exactly. In fact I was agreeing with you to some extent, that the 'dilation.' etc is somewhat mysterious to the intuition

actually the object is goin' many, many times v

Quote:
Seriously, do you really understand what this dude said?....he is assuming, not so explaining
I'd agree that my ruminations stretch the imagination. In order to further clarify my position ['Relative Relativity'] I'd have to delve into the concept of time-at-a-distance; which I'd be perfectly happy to do, but I'd be repeating just a whole lot from several earlier OP's. If you 're at all interested, however, Cam, I could do a search or two and provide a few links; but I just didn't think such detail appropriate in the middle of such an involved thread

So for now let's just slide back in to 'Conventional Relativity'

Quote:
So far, no observation at all suggest that such increasing of mass can happen with a macroscopic body. So, those ideas that it will also happen with a spaceship or a planet, star or a galaxy, such is lunacies, ideas invented by idiots
Wow Cam, can you provide a link or two. You've perked up my interest in the whole thing

Quote:
...space expansion -proved false by many scientists...
I do recall some recent controversy; however, nothing like disproof

Quote:
...their sizes don't show any increase in their mass
That'n, Cam, leaves me a bit in the dark [no pun intended]. I don't see how you can make much of a connection between observed size and supposed mass

when we place a bigger object in its path, that it has 'way more destructive power than we'd otherwise expect

Quote:
Why this idiot [Dale] has to place a bigger object in the path of the moving body
One of several possible ways to measure the mass of a moving object. Suggested in a jocular vein, doubtless a somewhat cumbersome means I'll admit; but I'd been led to understand that the apparent mass increase of a moving object had been pretty conclusively demonstrated. Maybe I've been mislead all these years, or just haven't kept up. So again, I wonder if you could provide a link or two, I'd hope tho from a reliable source

Quote:
...he says that we "see its clock"...What the hell is he talking about?
I'd suppose a rocket ship is passing by and perhaps using very special goggles we can see its clock--eg, through one of its windows. We note it seems to be goin' slower than ours. Admittedly, a fanciful means, but intended as simplification

Quote:
In order to do so, [be placed ahead of a rapidly-moving object] the body used for obstruction must reach the same speed or faster speed than light in order to be in front of the other moving body.
Perhaps Cam you've misunderstood. Let's say, somehow we've become aware of some sort of celestial object, an asteroid or something like it, coming toward us at a high speed. We are able to see it in spite of its incredible velocity because it started 'way off in a distance so the light reflected from its front end has already reached out some distance

So we set up a gadget of some kind in its path, maybe another heavy object, even a wall, and finally when that speedy body gets here, it hits with 'way more force than we'd otherwise have expected. Like I said, of course there are easier ways. For instance, being so big we'd expect it to trail a 'gravitational' wave passing by, its effect easily measured, its amplitude related to the evident increae in mass

Probably there are several even easier means, but then I'm no expert

Quote:
..also claims that he will be able to see the clock of the moving object to stop, no more "appearing to stop" but now it will stop
I readily admit it's a relative phenom, it hasn't stopped to the pilot but to us watching from the ground. Of course he's welcome to assume that when he first fired up his rockets he'd been moving away from us, is now perfectly still while it's us passing by him, our clocks stopped. but this is conventional relativity, and my postin' is gettin' too long...

Again, almost none of the above relates to my 'Relative Relativity,' another subject entirely
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 06:41:21